Performance with Workshop Groups," Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 347-365, 2002.4 S. C. Hockings, K. J. DeAngelis and R. F. Frey, "Peer-Led Team Learning in General Chemistry: Implementation and Evaluation," Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 85, no. 7, pp. 990-996, 2008.5 S. Brown and C. Poor, "In-Class Peer Tutoring: A Model for Engineering Instruction," International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1111-1119, 2010.6 T. J. Webster and K. C. Dee, "Supplemental Instruction Integrated Into an Introductory Engineering Course," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 377-383, 1998.7 R. Jacquez, V. G. Gude, A. Hanson, M. Auzenne and S. Williamson
potential areas of improvement.The remainder of this paper will summarize the physical models that were developed and utilizedin Spring 2015 to clarify challenging concepts in the introductory reinforced concrete coursetaught at the University of Illinois. The description for each physical model includes: targetconcept(s), suggested instructional activities, construction materials, as well as photographs. Thepaper will conclude with student feedback on the effectiveness of the models based on mid- andend-term course surveys. The overarching objective of this work is to provide other civilengineering educators with sample teaching tools to enhance students’ understanding ofreinforced concrete analysis/design theory and ability to visualize
affective outcomes wereinvestigated with the goal of predicting and improving engagement and connection tocommunity across a diverse range of institutions, students, teaching styles, and faculty. In theportion of the study discussed here, qualitative analysis of focus group data was used to identifydifferences in student perceptions of formal (in class) and informal (out of class) faculty supportby class size and institution type at five different institutions in engineering and computerscience majors.Research SettingThe five participating institutions in this study, described according to their Carnegieclassifications34, and their key characteristics as drawn from institutional data and missionstatements are as follows: HBCU (Masters S): A
keeping pace and routines, such as arriving on time. Finally, our study echoesprevious research in engineering education in that self-efficacy can be altered (negativelyand positively) in relatively short periods of time, which has an important effect onacademic achievement. References1. Meyer, M., & Marx, S. (2014). Engineering dropouts: A qualitative examination of why undergraduates leave engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4), 525– 548.2. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students, volume 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.3. DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (1999). An event history model of student departure
Testing of Hypothesis step.References1. Carper, K. L. (Ed.). (2000). Forensic engineering. CRC Press.2. Delatte, N. J., & Rens, K. L. (2002). Forensics and case studies in civil engineering education: State of the art. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 16(3), 98-109.3. Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects the public's expectations about real forensic science.Jurimetrics, 357-364.4. Chen, S. E., & Janardhanam, R. (2013). Forensic engineering education reform. Proceedings of the ICE- Forensic Engineering, 166(1), 9-16.5. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
. Cynthia C. Fry, Baylor University Cynthia C. Fry is a Senior Lecturer of Computer Science and the Director of the Computer Science Fel- lows program at Baylor University. She teaches a wide variety of engineering and computer science courses, deploys a series of faculty development seminars focused on Curiosity, Connections, and Cre- ating Value, and works collaboratively and remotely with a series of colleagues on the development of EML-based courses. She is a KEEN Fellow.Dr. Kenneth W. Van Treuren, Baylor University Ken Van Treuren is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering at Baylor University. He received his B. S. in Aeronautical Engineering from the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado
completion. The twotools were tested in various engineering courses and mixed results were found: While both toolswere adoptable, only the exam wrapper appeared to be efficacious in this study.Introduction Metacognition, which has as its simplest definition thinking about one’s thinking, is themodern term used to capture the processes that learners use to reflect upon and take actions toimprove their learning. The psychologist John Flavell1 introduced the term in the 1970’s whileadvancing research on the topic, but ideas about the usefulness of reflection in improvinglearning began much earlier, starting with John Dewey2. Both Piaget and Vygotsky – bothrecognized widely for their theories in education – wrote of the role of metacognition in
persistentstructure of the education system even though we were explicitly attempting to behavedifferently. As we, the faculty and students, began to recognize the structure we could let go ofthe problem and the solutions. However, this “letting go” had to occur repeatedly (almostweekly) as the issue continued to be bothersome to many of us.What are the cultural beliefs, values, and paradigms that are causing the problems of intransigentSTEM pedagogies that result in STEM cultures that are exclusive? We first note that “S” refersto the physical, or equivalently, the natural sciences; it excludes all other organized ways ofthinking, or “sciences.” Implicitly, natural sciences are prioritized over other “sciences.”The natural sciences derive knowledge through
tacit.Explicit knowledge is codified and captured in archives and databases in discrete words ornumbers. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, provides the context for developing andunderstanding explicit knowledge [7]. Tacit knowledge is not codified and is, therefore,harder to communicate. The development of tacit knowledge is a continuous activity betweenindividuals sharing experiences for mutual understanding [6].Knowledge needs to be continuously created in order for it to be continuously shared.Nonaka [6] proposes that knowledge is created through the conversion between tacit andexplicit knowledge via four modes, referred to by the acronym SECI, in a continuous cycle:1) socialization (S) is creating tacit knowledge from other tacit knowledge through
expertise in biomedical engineering students.In Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM[2] Brophy. S., Hodge, L. & Bransford, J. (2004, October). Work in progress – Adaptive expertise: Beyond applyacademic knowledge. In the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.[3] Crawford, V. M., Schlager, M., Toyama, Y., Riel, M., & Vahey, P. (2005, April). Characterizing adaptive expertise inscience teaching. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.[4] De Arment, S. T., Reed, E., & Wetzel, A. P. (2013). Promoting Adaptive Expertise A Conceptual Framework forSpecial Educator Preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education: The
the course. Future data collection will also provide the opportunity to assess thecourse’s long-term viability and effectiveness as either a stand-alone course within thecurriculum or as an incubator that can be integrated into existing courses.References1. Streveler, R. A., Smith, K. A. & Pilotte, M. Aligning course content, assessment, and delivery: Creating a context for outcome-based education. K. Mohd Yusof, S. Mohammad, N. Ahmad Azli, M. Noor Hassan, A. Kosnin S. K, Syed Yusof (Eds.), Outcome-Based Educ. Eng. Curric. Eval. Assess. Accreditation. Hershey, Pennsylvania IGI Glob. (2012).2. Wiggins, G. P. & McTighe, J. Understanding by design. (Ascd, 2005).3. Dewey, J. Education and experience. (1938).4
.2.2.1 Development Academic Partner and ActivitiesDistinguished faculty members from the Milwaukee School of Engineering and Virginia StateUniversity (a HBCU partner) have supported this project from the very beginning asDevelopment Academic Partners. Mutual interest is instrumental in this longstandingpartnership. The role of the academic development partner is well defined and involves thefollowing: Identifying at least one local industry partner involved in software development activities Working with assigned focus groups to critically review current course Developing six hours of course modules to address identified gaps in a content area familiar to the university program and its local industry partner(s
creativity and innovation. The instructordecides what should be learned based on their own paradigm of what a good engineer shouldknow, but this does not take into account the interests of the student or the ever-changing needsof the world. The underlying assumption of this predominant system is that human beings are notnatural learners and must be forced to learn through external behavioral motivations such asreward and punishment.A look through the literature shows that in the 1990’s, before No Child Left Behind (NCLB),there was much talk about grading and assessment, mostly related to standards-based grading.The discussion faded from view as the consequences of NCLB focused on the detrimental effectsof standardized testing. During these early
for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2012[3] Flowers, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pierson, C. T. (2000). Information technology use and cognitive outcomes in thefirst year of college. Journal of Higher Education, 637-667.[4] Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The relationships between computer and information technology use, selectedlearning and personal development outcomes, and other college experiences. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 42(3), 217-232.[5] Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and information technology 2004:Convenience, connection, control, and learning. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE
. Analternative hypothesis is that there are more women and minorities starting civil or structuralengineering studies now than there were in the past, so the graduate student diversity willincrease as these students continue through the pipeline. However, nationwide data shows that, ifanything, women and minority representation among students in science and engineeringdisciplines has decreased slightly over the past 10 years2,5, making this hypothesis unlikely.Table 1. Demographic data obtained for university students and faculty in civil (C) and/or structural (S)engineering. FACULTY UNDERGRADUATE GRADUATE STUDENTS
. Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986.Besterfield-Sacre, M., Atman, C.J., and Shuman, L.J. (1997). Characteristics of freshman engineering students: Models for determining student attrition in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 139–149.Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A
allow as little as half a year. WhenEC 2000 abandoned credit-hour bean counting, the language shifted to require “adequateattention and time” for general education subjects (while retaining numerical requirements of ayear for fundamental science and math courses and a year and a half of engineering content).Nevertheless, regardless of whether one casts EC 2000’s advancements for liberal education ofengineers as meager, incremental, or transformative, there is no doubt that the current proposedchanges, by omitting the requirement of “adequate attention and time” for educational breadth,drops the floor on well-rounded education of engineers. This change threatens to send thecountry back not just 20 years to the 1990s before EC 2000, but more than
critical success factors’, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 188-208.5. Cole, R. C. (1941). Vocational guidance for boys: a program for schools and social agencies. New York, London: Harper & Brothers.6. dos Santos Matai, P. H. L., & Matai, S. (2009). Cooperative Education: Andragogy. Retrieved from International Social Science Council,ISSC, 1, rue Miollis, Paris Cedex 15, 75732, France website: http://www.iiis.org/CDs2009/CD2009SCI/ag2009/PapersPdf/A064IQ.pdf7. Dukovska-Popovska, I., Hove-Madsen, V., & Nielsen, K. B. (2008). Teaching lean thinking through game: Some challenges. 36th European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) on Quality Assessment, Employability & Innovation.8. Eckes, G. (2001) The Six
2015 AIChE Annual Meeting.The survey was conducted via a web-based interface hosted by runningthe open-source software LimeSurvey (limesurvey.org). E-mail invitations to participate wereinitially sent to all 158 department chairs in the United States requesting participation from thefaculty members teaching the relevant course(s). A separate request was sent directly to theinstructors of record for process controls courses during the 2014-2015 academic year based oninformation posted online. From that population, 81 usable responses representing 77 institutionsin the United States were received for a 48.7% institutional response rate.Questions were composed in consultation amongst the authors and were intended to providesome continuity with
confidence without conceit. They have a firm handshake, look people inthe eye, address colleagues by name, take pride in their appearance, speak up instead ofmumbling, etc.”“I want the students to show full confidence to look me in the eye and tell me where theirinterests are, definitive answers are always best.” Leadership research reveals a positive relationship in a leader’s self-confidence andsuccessful leadership34. These findings also align with Hartman et. al.’s (2015) study whereindustry professionals identified initiative/confidence as a main competence for entry-levelengineering leaders. The authors define the initiative/confidence theme as “stepping up, goingthe extra step, asking questions, having confidence and/or self-confidence
our students can seek and otherreasons. This paper presents the process adopted by the ECET program faculty to use the pastATMAE accreditation practices to present ABET accreditation. A hallmark of our program hasbeen the mandatory two-semester long co-op experiences and an optional third-semester co-opexperience, which has served as an important tool along with our in-class course instruction andlaboratory experience for the success of our students. Our program educational objectives reviewand student outcomes assessment of ABET’s Engineering Technology AccreditationCommission general ‘a to k’ criteria and Electrical/Electronic(s) Engineering Technology, andComputer Engineering Technology program specific criteria use four direct and
corresponds to an air velocity of roughly 30 m/s. With the leaky connections, theerrant dynamic pressure and velocity measured about 6 mm of water and 10 m/s, respectively.Thus, their digital measurement device appeared in every way to be working properly, but if thestudents took the effort to convert their pressure measurement to a velocity measurement, theymay realize that the velocity they were measuring was too low, which admittedly may requiresome amount of intuition that the students probably do not yet have.Because the exercise involves questions of accuracy, the students were also asked to assess theuncertainty in their measurements. Because the fluid density is needed to convert the dynamicpressure measurement into a velocity measurement
an Analytic Lens. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching 2007, 44, 1187-1218. 2. Meyers, K. L.; Ohland, M. W.; Pawley, A. L.; Silliman, S. E.; & Smith, K. A. Factors relating to engineering identity. Global Journal of Engineering Education 2012, 14 (1), 119-131. 3. Ohland, M. W.; Sheppard, S. D.; Lichtenstein, G.; Eris, O.; Chachra, D.; & Layton, R. A. Persistence, Engagement, and Migration in Engineering Programs. Journal of Engineering Education 2008, 97 (3), 259- 278. 4. Meyer, M.; Marx, S. Engineering Dropouts: A Qualitative Examination of Why Undergraduates Leave Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 2014, 103 (4), 525-548. 5. Godwin, A.; Potvin, G.; & Hazari, Z. The Development
civilengineering faculty have sought to develop their program appropriately along a set of commonlyaccepted educational taxonomies; that is, Bloom’s Taxonomy. These widely known taxonomiesare based on the seminal work of the 1950’s educational committee chaired by Benjamin Bloom.The committee established a set of taxonomies in three domains of learning: cognitive, affectiveand psychomotor. The cognitive domain taxonomy is widely accepted in many fields and hasbeen identified as, “arguably one of the most influential education monographs of the past halfcentury.”3 The taxonomies are a language that describes the progressive development of anindividual in each domain and are defined as follows4: Cognitive: of, relating to, being, or involving conscious
styles, and academic integrity.To build an effective supervisory relationship, first a workshop on Life as a graduate student isoffered. Students hear from senior graduate students on the challenges, opportunities, andsupport throughout grad studies. Additional topics of discussion include: 1) how to keep a happyand healthy life style, 2) where to get help? and 3) what are the opportunities for leadership orscholarship? The discussions are conducted in round table groups to provide an open format.The second workshop focuses on the supervisory relationship. This workshop is designed toteach students on their responsibilities as graduate students, and to give them a toolkit to build asuccessful relationship with their supervisor(s)/academic
DUE1347817. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References1. Koretsky, M., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., Brown, S. A., Dick, T., Brubaker-Cole, S. J., Sitomer, A., Quardokus Fisher, K., Risien, J., Little, D. L., Smith, C., & Ivanovitch, J. D. (2015, June). Enhancing STEM Education at Oregon State University – Year 1 Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.240022. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of
major in college. Findings identifieddifferences in male and female students career fit confidence offering another reason whywomen were more likely to leave engineering after graduation [25]. Cech et al.’s findingssuggest it is important to consider the impact of professional socialization when examininginteractions engineering students have with industry. The authors illustrate how the frameworkcan be used to explain gender representation differences in engineering.Our intent for this paper is to use professional socialization as a lens to examine the value that anAIDP brings to a students’ engineering identity formation, not to provide a full review on thistopic. We focus on three outcomes of professional socialization to guide our